The Engage Family Blog

Official Blog of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia

Maybe She’s Born with It.

with 4 comments

How a British Columbia study helps to further prove that homosexuality is not genetic. 


How often do we hear about the “fact” that homosexual behavior is genetic, it is in-born, and it is not a choice at all? Depending on how much biased media you allow into your brain you will hear it quite often and very emphatic if nothing else.


So perhaps it will come as just as much of a shock to you, as it was to me, that lesbian, gay, and bi-sexual teens in British Columbia are “not necessarily only going to be having sex with their same gender.”


A recent study by Elizabeth Saewyc, associate professor in the school of nursing at the University of British Columbia and research director of the McCreary Centre Society, and published in a Toronto publication claims that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual teens in British Columbia are at higher risk of becoming pregnant or causing a pregnancy than their heterosexual peers.” Click here for the story from the Alliance Defense Fund webpage.


Now wait just a minute. Am I supposed to believe that homosexual girls are getting pregnant and homosexual guys are impregnating girls at greater rates than heterosexuals? That would mean that homosexuals are having sex with persons of the opposite sex. But if they are “born” homosexual, if it is “genetic,” if they “can’t help who they are attracted to,” why in the world are they having sex with people of the opposite sex?


I have a possible answer to that not-so-hypothetical question. Could it be that these teens are not “born” gay, they are not ‘genetically” gay, and they actually CAN help who they are attracted to? After reading this article which, quite frankly I am surprised was allowed to be published, it would seem that the conclusions of countless biologists who say there is nothing to support the claim that a person is born gay is correct.


Saewyc went on to say,

 “We assume that sexual attraction, sexual behavior and sexual identity are going to be 100 per cent consistent for people. And that’s not the case. So they may know who they’re attracted to. They may identify. But they’re not necessarily only going to be having sex with their same gender.”

 I don’t mean to be blunt, but that is just the silliest thing I have heard all day. And for the record, when I say that I am heterosexual, I mean it, 100 per cent of the time. In fact, it seems rather suspect to me for a person to claim to be homosexual, to be “born that way,” and then to feel the need to experiment with persons of the opposite sex. And if anyone would like to equate the “struggles” of the gay community with the civil rights struggles of the African-American people, just try and find one African-American who “experimented” with being white, or Hispanic.


This information is not so laughable considering the divisiveness of the issue here in America. The gay community wants us to believe that they did not choose to be homosexual, that they cannot help it. And yet here is plain evidence that homosexuals are not 100 per cent attracted to the same sex. And the difference here is that rarely, if ever, do we hear about a heterosexual being at all attracted to persons of the same sex. (Giving credit to the fact that some call themselves bi-sexual, I am speaking primarily of those who classify themselves as heterosexuals.)


 But some still don’t take the hint and get the message. David Wolfe, a clinical psychologist in Toronto said in the article,


“The take-away (message) to me is we have to normalize in our education of teens around such sexual orientation. It’s much like racism and sexism…”


No Mr. Wolfe that is not the message. The message is that many teens are hurting and confused because they live in a media fed society that tells them how they should be, while the government tells their parents what they can and cannot teach them, all while their school system seeks to indoctrinate them with every humanistic and non-religious philosophy under the sun. Which is why the media should stick to reporting actual news and not making it up, the government should listen to the people and allow them to decide what laws are passed in the land they live, and the schools should reinforce the family as the central unit from which a strong, well-balanced person emerges.


And oh yeah, mom and dad, turn the television off and spend more time with your kids.


Let’s boil this down. If a person is truly homosexual then they have no desire for persons of the opposite sex. So if homosexual teens are getting pregnant and impregnating persons of the opposite sex at rates of two and half to four times those of their heterosexual counterparts, as this study asserts, something does not add up.


And more than likely it’s the fact that homosexuality is not the genetic condition that the gay community has claimed it is. As I have mentioned here several times before and will continue to mention, we all know of an ex-homosexual, but not a single person knows an ex-African-American.


With countless resources out there that are having great success with helping people with unwanted same sex attractions to free themselves from those attractions, it is evident that homosexuality is not genetic, it is a choice. Some teens are not sure which to choose, some are choosing to walk away from that lifestyle, and still some would choose to impose their personal choice on everyone else.


But the bottom line is that it is still just a choice.   


Further Food for Thought: 

A Newsweek e-debate over their recently published article claiming the Bible supports same-sex marriage.

Settling the Issue:  Same-Sex Marriage IS NOT a Civil Right 


Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia. 



Written by Nathan Cherry

December 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Homosexuality is perhaps not genetic, but it is not a choice. Homosexuals can’t help who they’re attracted to but they’re capable of having sex. There’s nothing saying of “why” would they do that. It’s like homosexuals are more suicidal but why? Because of the unsupported people around them.


    December 22, 2008 at 10:08 am

    • Even though a person’s attractions may be “involuntary,” they are still capable of refraining from acting on those attractions. For instance, a heterosexual man who is married may feel attracted to another woman who is not his wife. This attraction that he feels is no justificatioin for acting upon it and regardless of what he feels he is capable of not acting upon that attraction. Besides, attractions are invisible to the naked eye and are irrelevant to public policy.

      To have an attraction that is invisible and not inborn and involutnary – something that cannot help to be acted upon, such as a person’s ethnicity or race – should not and must not be protected under Civil Rights Law. Research indicates that roughtly 80% “self-identified homosexuals” have engaged in heterosexual relationships (see Social Organization of Sexulaity: The Sexual Practices in the United States). Based upon research, it is more than evident that homosexual attractions are voluntary and can/cannot be acted upon. Yes, “homosexual’s are capable of having sex with those of the opposite sex and same-sex. This is why a person’s attraction does not serve as a criterion for protection under Civil Rights Law.

      Jesse Wisnewski

      December 22, 2008 at 2:38 pm

  2. “Even though a person’s attractions may be “involuntary,” they are still capable of refraining from acting on those attractions”
    How do you explain “cheatings”.
    If attraction is not inborn, why would female likes masculines features while male likes feminine features?


    December 22, 2008 at 8:26 pm

  3. Tinisq,

    Sorry for any potential confusion. Let me clarify what I was saying.

    Attractions may be “involuntary,” but behavior is not. As a male, I may be attracted to another woman that is not my wife, but this is not grounds for acting upon that attraction and committing adultery.

    Men/women may be attracted to the same-sex and this attraciton may be involuntary in some ways. However, this “involuntary” attraction cannot be perfectly involuntary/incontrollable – as a person’s race and/or ethnicity – because self-identified homosexuals are known to have engaged in heterosexual relationships.

    Moreover, research indicates that a self-identified homosexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings. The changes encompassed the core aspects of sexual orientation (Robert L. Spitzer, M.D., “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 32 (October 2003): 413).

    In short, I am not saying that attraction is not involuntary, I’m saying that it is not involuntary in the same way as a person’s race and/or ethnicity, to name just two examples.

    Homosexual behavior is simply a voluntary act upon a person’s attraction to the same-sex. Since homosexual attraction can change (as research shows) and does not have to be acted upon (as research shows), then homosexual attraction and/or behavior cannot serve as a criterion for Civil Rights protection.

    Jesse Wisnewski

    December 22, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: